This Blog was originally created for addressing frequent questions that have arisen during my discussions about the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on discussion boards on the Internet—hence the title of the Blog. I am now using it mainly as my personal Blog to discuss matters of doctrinal, theological, or personal interest. I am an independent blogger and do not speak officially for the LDS Church.
Disputed Topics ...
The contents of my book: Disputed Topics in the Theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is now freely available online at: https://antumpub.blogspot.com/
After posting my previous message about Reformed theology, I thought some additional comments on Psalms 14 might be appropriate. Psalms 14 is not all that Calvinistic and Evangelical theologians might like it to be. One of the rules of sound biblical exegesis is that you take into consideration the genre of the passage you are examining. You don’t exegete poetry in the same way you would exegete prose, because poetry makes much use of simile, metaphor, deliberate omissions, and exaggerated speech to achieve a desired effect that is not common to ordinary prose. The Psalms are poetry, and you don’t read, or try to understand them in the same way that you would a piece of historical narrative, or a didactic prose. Psalms 14 begins by addressing “the fool,” which in biblical terms is equivalent to the “unrighteous”:
Psalms 14:
1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none [of “the fool”] that doeth good.
Then in the next two verses it makes it sound as though it is now addressing everybody on the planet without exception—when in fact it is still addressing just “the fool”. That is the language of poetry:
Psalms 14:
2 The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Those are the verses that have tripped up the Reformed and Evangelical theologians into thinking that it is saying that nobody ever is or can be righteous. But that is the exaggerated language of poetry. The next two verses make it clear that the previous two verses are not meant to be taken that way, but are still referring to “the fool,” or the “workers of iniquity” mentioned in verse 4, which is made clear enough by contrasting it with the “generations of the righteous” in verse 5:
Psalms 14:
4 Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the Lord.
5 There were they [the “fools,” or “workers of iniquity”] in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous.
That clarifies the meaning of the previous two verses. If nobody is righteous, according to verses 2 and 3, how do you explain verse 5? If nobody in the world ever is or can be righteous, which is the Calvinistic interpretation, where did the “generation of the righteous” come from in verse 5? Is the Psalm contradicting itself? It appears to be, because it is saying one thing In verses 2 and 3, and the opposite in verse 5. Which is it, and how do we resolve the contradiction? One of those two statements can’t be saying what it appears to be. So which one is it, and how do we know? We find the answer by comparing and contrasting it with other similar passages in the Psalms first, and in the rest of the Bible second that clarify them, as demonstrated in the examples given in my previous post on Reformed theology. If 99% of the Bible is saying one thing, and one odd passage appears to be saying something different, we go by the 99%, and use that to correctly understand the odd 1%. We create our theology on the basis of the 99%, and adjust the 1% with the help of the 99%, not the other way. Calvinism does it backwards. It builds its theology on the basis of the 1%, and turns a blind eye to the 99%. So Psalm 14 doesn’t teach what Calvinistic and Reformed theologians like to think it does.
If nobody ever is or can be righteous, how was Cornelius found righteous before God, who wasn’t even a believer, or a Christian or a Jew, but a pagan, and a believer in a polytheistic religion, at the time when he was visited by an angel (no less), who told him that he had been found righteous before God (Acts 10:2, 4, 22, 30–31, 34–35)? Whom should we believe more, Calvinism or the Bible? Or how do you explain Romans 2:6–16, which categorically states that you don’t even have to be a believer or a Christian to be saved, but simply to act in righteousness, and do what is good and right in the sight of God? A pagan who acts in righteousness out of a good conscience will be saved; whereas a “Christian” who does wickedly will be condemned. That is what Paul is saying in Romans 2:6–16. Which should I believe more, Calvinism or the Bible? Calvinism draws its support (erroneously) from 1% of the Bible, while turning a blind eye to 99% which speaks against it. And they are fanatical about it, and they think that they are “saved”.
I came across the above video in which Stephen Nichols of Ligonier Ministries responds to the question, “Is it true that God ‘loves the sinner but hates the sin’?” to which he gives the following reply:
“You know, you hear this all the time, don’t you. And it comes under the category of, ‘We would like to try to help out God.’ There are elements to the revelation of God that are difficult for us to take; and one of them is anytime we associate the word ‘hate’ with God. It is hard for us to do that. But here is what we have; we have it in Scripture. So this idea that God hates the sin, loves the sinner, is contrary to two Psalms; and also contrary to the opening verses of the book of Malachi, ‘Esau have I hated, Jacob have I loved.’ We have to be very careful that we don’t think somehow we help God by improving His PR for folks. So we have to be governed here by the text. Now, I don’t think that means we run around saying, ‘God hates these particular sinners, God hates this particular group,’ and hold banners up, and parade up and down the street, saying, ‘God hates (fill-in the social group)’. I don’t think that is the call for us, but neither do I think there is merit in that phrase. What we do need to talk about is that I was a worse sinner than anyone that we want to say God hates; we all were. And to understand, you know, R.C. said this how many times? It is one sin, just the smallest sin is an affront to the holiness of God, and just brings down the thundering wrath of God upon us. And when we slip into these kind of statements, we think we are doing God a favor, but we are not doing sinners any favor, because we are not helping them see the wrath of God, we are not helping them see what that means. And until they see that, they don’t see their true need for a substitute, and they don’t fully understand what Christ was doing on the cross. So, sometimes we have to be careful in how we want to help God’s PR.”
There are several exegetical (and linguistic) errors made in that commentary. There are a number of passages in the Bible (not many, as he has pointed out) which suggest that God “hates” sinners; and there are also other passages (more in fact) which suggest that God loves sinners! To focus only on the first set of scriptures, and ignore the second, is not helpful in arriving at a sound interpretation. Sound doctrine is obtained when all relevant passages of scripture are considered. I start with the verses which suggest that God “hates” sinners:
Psalm 5:
5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.
Psalm 11:
5 The Lord trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.
Malachi 1:
2 I have loved you, saith the Lord. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob,
3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.
There is a linguistic element here that needs to be resolved before the theological one can be considered. The word “hate” as used in the biblical narrative, and in the OT especially, is a bit nuanced, and it doesn’t have the same kind of meaning that are associated with it in today’s English. The following verses illustrate the point:
Genesis 29:
30 And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years.
31 And when the Lord saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren.
32 And Leah conceived, and bare a son, and she called his name Reuben: for she said, Surely the Lord hath looked upon my affliction; now therefore my husband will love me.
33 And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Because the Lord hath heard I was hated, he hath therefore given me this son also: and she called his name Simeon.
The word “hate” in the above passage does not mean what it does in our everyday English. It simply means that he loved her less. He didn’t favor her quite as much as the other one. He still loved both of them, but one of them less than the other (because she wasn’t as pretty). It certainly doesn’t mean that he harboured some kind of ill will or malice towards the less favoured one—which is what the word “hate” conveys to us in modern English. Here is another example:
Deuteronomy 21:
15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:
16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:
17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.
Again in these verses the word “hate” doesn’t have the same meaning, or have the same nuances associated with it that it does in today’s English. It simply means “loved less”. This nuanced meaning of “hate” is also found in the New Testament. Here is a quote:
Luke 14:
26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
In this verse Jesus is not advising his disciples to break the fifth commandment, to “Honour thy father and thy mother” (Exod. 20:12); and which himself reiterates several times in the rest of the NT (Matt. 15:4; 19:19; Mark 7:10; 10:19; Luke 18:20; Eph. 6:2). The word “hate” in Luke 14:26 simply means to love Jesus more, or give deference to him more, so as not to be afraid of offending the others for the sake of Jesus if need be. If your father and mother don’t want you to follow Jesus for example, you still follow Jesus, even if that means that you offend them by so doing. It doesn’t mean that you literally “hate” your father and mother etc., in the sense of harboring malice or ill will towards them—which is the meaning it conveys in modern English. It doesn’t mean that we should be disrespectful towards them either, while obeying that commandment. When it says that God “hates” sinners, it is meant to be understood in that sense of the term—meaning that he hates their sinfulness; but still loves their souls; and wants them to repent and be saved. There are many biblical passages that confirm this:
Romans 5:
8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
So God loved sinners enough that he wanted to die and atone for their sins, so they could repent and be saved. Here is another:
John 3:
16 For God so loved the world [of sinners], that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Therefore God loves sinners! And he loves them enough to be willing to die on the cross to atone for their sins, so they could be redeemed and be saved. Here is another:
John 15:
13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
1 John 4:
10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us [as sinners], and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
The same thing is taught here. God loves sinners, and loves them enough to want to die for and atone for their sins; but he disapproves of their sinfulness; and wants them to repent so they can be forgiven and be saved. Here is another:
Matthew 5:
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
In other words, God does not discriminate between sinners and saints when it comes to dispensing his daily favors and blessings on them—for a good reason. The reason is that he loves the soul of the sinner as much as the soul of the saint, and he wants to grant them the chance to repent of their sins and be saved. Peter has expressed it in these words:
2 Peter 3:
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Again we come to the same thing: God loves the soul of the sinner as much as the soul of the saint, and wants to give them as much chance and opportunity to repent and be saved as this brief mortal probation makes possible, before that window of opportunity is closed, and we enter judgement. But the choice is still theirs. Nothing is imposed on anyone. There is no “predestination” and no “irresistible grace”. And in case anyone has been wondering if this is just a New Testament doctrine, it is found in the Old Testament too:
Ezekiel 18:
23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?
Ezekiel 33:
11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way [repent] and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
So it is the verdict of both Testaments that God loves the soul of the sinner every bit as much as the soul of the saint, and desires their salvation and redemption, and grants them all the chance and opportunity they need to realize that ideal before it is too late. But the choice is always theirs; and no one is compelled nor predestined. In that commentary Stephen Nichols has also given a quote from R.C. Sproul that needs to be discussed separately. The quote is as follows: “And to understand, you know, R.C. said this how many times? It is one sin, just the smallest sin is an affront to the holiness of God, and just brings down the thundering wrath of God upon us.” What that is implying is that all sins in the sight of God are equal. There is no distinction between greater sins and lesser sins, major sins and minor sins. A one-time shoplifting carries the same penalty in the sight of God as a highway robbery, or a violent burglary; and insulting someone in a fit of anger is as heinous a crime in the judgement of God as adultery, rape, or murder, and carries the same punishment. That is not borne out by the scriptures. All sins are not equal. Some sins are more heinous in the sight of God than others, and carry a greater punishment. Some sinners will be beaten with “many stripes,” while others will be beaten with “few stripes” (Luke 12:47–48); and some sins are forgivable in the next life, and some are not (Matt. 12:31–32). Inherent in the idea of being judged “according to our works” (Rev.20:12–13) is that the judgement will be proportional to the “work”. Greater acts of good will carry a greater “reward” in heaven (Matt. 5:12; Luke 6:23); while greater acts of evil will carry a greater punishment. Some punishments are permanent, as in the case of the unpardonable sin; while other punishments come to an end after one has paid the “uttermost farthing” (Matt. 5:26). It is not a “one size fits all,” like it teaches in the Calvinism. It also ignores the biblical teaching that God is “merciful and gracious, long suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth” (Exod. 34:6); meaning that he is merciful and forgiving, and readily forgives sin and iniquity when repented of. His primary disposition is not to “bring down his thundering wrath” on people; but to forgive them their sins at the first hint of genuine repentance. The god of Calvinism is the God of “thundering wrath;” whereas the God of the Bible is the God of forgiveness, gentleness, mercy, compassion and grace. He is “longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth;” and “takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked,” but wants them to “turn” from their “evil ways” and “live”. He mourns and weeps when they are punished for their sins (Matt. 23:37; Luke 13:34). He takes “no pleasure” in it. The god of Calvinism, on the other hand, delights in the punishment of the wicked, and rubs his hand with glee when they are burned forever in hell. So the bottom line is that God loves the soul of the sinner as much as the soul of the saint, and desires their salvation and redemption as much as the other’s. But the choice is theirs; and God gives them all the chance and opportunity they need to realize that if they want to. No one is compelled either way. This doesn’t mean that God condones their sins; but that he loves them enough to want them to repent, be forgiven, and be saved; and “joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance” (Luke 15:7). God’s desire is that all might come to repentance and be saved, as Peter says (2 Peter 3:9), not just the “elect”. Stephen Nichols in his commentary has seriously failed to grasp the biblical theology of redemption, and God’s love for all mankind, sinners and saints alike. That is what Calvinism does to people I guess. It numbs the mind, dulls the intellect, and distorts the thinking process so that the most obvious truths, and plainest declarations of scripture become inaccessible and unintelligible.
___________________
P. S. After posting the above, I came across the following video by R.C. Sproul and others which corrects my first impressions. So kudos to R.C. Sproul et al. for getting that doctrine right: https://youtu.be/T01LZfKFkAU
Has it become a new religion for some people? I don’t claim expertise on the subject; but this guy sounds convincing to me. I am all in favor of looking after the environment, eliminating waste, industrial and other kinds of pollution, protecting wildlife and natural habitats etc. I am in favor of eliminating plastic pollution, which is causing so much harm to marine life and wildlife. But that is not the same as Climate Change or Global Worming. The climate has been changing, and the globe has been warming and cooling since creation. I am not aware of any “science” that proves that anything man does has any effect on that—or even that it is necessarily a bad thing.
I came across the above video in which Mike Winger, after pointing to numerous prophetic references to the coming of Jesus Christ in the Old Testament, at 23:20 minutes into the video embarks on a criticism of Joseph Smith, by pointing to the lack of such prophetic references to him in comparison with Jesus, which, according to him, discredits Joseph Smith as a true prophet. Here is a quote (emphasis added):
“Now let’s contrast this, because I think it will show us how cool it is; because other people have come after Jesus, and they have been like, ‘Hey, I have got a new revelation from God;’ and then they will try to launch off the Bible into their new revelation. Muhammad is an example of this, right? ‘I got the new revelation.’ He has got the Quran, and all the other writings that go along with that. But I want to talk today a little bit about Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith is the founder of Mormonism; and did you know, this Joseph Smith shows up unannounced, like there is no Old Testament passage that says that this guy is going to come. He can’t be like Jesus, and be like, ‘Hey man, you believe the Bible, then you are going to believe me, because it said I was coming.’ There is none of that. But according to Mormonism, there is some of that, so what I want to do right now is, compare this evidence for Jesus, with the evidence for Joseph Smith.”
I have a problem with that comparison. Why is he comparing “evidence for Jesus” with “evidence for Joseph Smith”? Jesus claimed to be the promised Messiah, the Son of God, and the Savior and Redeemer of the world. Joseph Smith made no such claim. He claimed to be nothing more than a messenger of Jesus Christ, a true prophet and Apostle, like the ones mentioned in the Bible. If he wants to compare Joseph Smith with anything, he should compare him with one of the Old Testament prophets, or New Testament Apostles. He wouldn’t compare Moses with Jesus, or Abraham, or Job, or Elijah, or Jeremiah; he wouldn’t compare Peter with Jesus, or Paul, or James, or John; so why compare Joseph Smith with Jesus? By so doing he is putting Joseph Smith on a higher pedestal, elevating him to a higher station than any of the Old Testament prophets or New Testament Apostles! He is saying that Moses is not worthy of comparison with Jesus, Abraham isn’t, Job isn’t, neither Elijah, Jeremiah, or Daniel; he is saying Peter isn’t worthy of comparison with Jesus, Paul isn’t, neither James, nor John—but Joseph Smith is! I think that Joseph Smith would have been flattered by that kind of comparison.
The obvious reason why he is not comparing Joseph Smith with one of the Old Testament prophets, or New Testament Apostles, of course is that if he did, he would not be able to make Joseph Smith look any worse (or better) than them, because there are no more such “prophetic references” in the Bible for them than there is for Joseph Smith (nor need to be). He is not comparing “like with like,” because he knows that if he did, he could not make Joseph Smith look bad, because there are no more such “prophetic references” in the Bible to them than there is to him. His objective is to make Joseph Smith look bad by any means possible—right or wrong, honest or dishonest. He knows that he cannot do that by comparing him with Isaiah or Jeremiah, Elijah or Elisha, Daniel or Ezekiel, Moses or Abraham; he cannot do it by comparing him with Peter or Paul, James or John; so the only option he has left is to compare him with Jesus. I am sure that will not have escaped the notice of his viewers.
Then he proceeds to comment on and criticize an article that he has found on the Church’s website, in which the author attempts to find prophetic references to Joseph Smith in the Bible; but his reference to that article is a bit misleading. He makes it sound as though the article is some kind of “official” statement put out by the Church, which it is not. It is an article written by its author for the January 1989 issue of The Ensign, a monthly journal published by the Church, the past issues of which can be read on the Church’s website. Anybody can write an article for The Ensign; and those who do are reflecting their own personal views, not articulating the official doctrinal position of the Church. I am sure there is nothing in it that the Church would disapprove of or find fault with; but presenting it as some kind of “official” statement of the Church would also be misleading. I will refrain from commenting on it because that would take too long; but it can be seen here; and readers who are interested can read it and judge it for themselves. I will only briefly comment on one thing he said with reference to it. At 27:13 minutes he makes this comment:
“But Joseph Smith; in Mormon theology one of his giftings, and this was part of the ‘gifting of tongues;’ in Mormonism, gift of tongues is different than it is in a biblical sense; but in Mormonism he had the gift of tongues, like he could translate things that weren’t even there, and that was part of his gift of tongues, … this is why Mormonism is currently shrinking, because it is so outlandish, …”
Which of course is entirely incorrect. That is not what the “gift of tongues” in LDS theology is; and Joseph Smith’s ability to translate ancient scripture had nothing to do with the “gift of tongues”. Joseph Smith was a seer as well as a prophet; and his ability to translate ancient languages (by revelation) had to do with his gift as a seer, not the gift of tongues as such. And the LDS Church is not “shrinking”. That is his wishful thinking. It is still one of the fastest growing churches. It is his “Evangelical Christianity” that is shrinking, not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Skipping the rest of his commentary on the article, at 33:26 minutes into the video he continues his criticism of Joseph Smith as follows (emphasis added):
“But yes, why do I show that to you? How do I know Muhammad isn’t really the Prophet? How do I know Joseph Smith isn’t really a prophet of God? How do I know Joe Schmo knocking on my door tomorrow, having a new revelation from God, isn’t? Where in the scriptures does it tell me I should be looking for you?”
The answer is, The same place in scripture that told the Israelites to be looking for Moses, or for Jeremiah, or for Daniel, or for Isaiah; the same place that told the Christians to be looking for Paul, or for Peter, or James, or John. How did they know? How have the people of any age or generation recognized a true prophet from a false one? How did the people in the days of Jeremiah know he was a true prophet, or in the days of Isaiah, or Ezekiel, or Daniel? How did the people of Nineveh know that Jonah was a true prophet and not a fake one? We can figure out whether Joseph Smith was a true prophet or not in the same way that they could; and it was not because somebody had “prophesied” that they should come (except possibly in a generic sense, which would be equally applicable to Joseph Smith). He then continues his criticism as follows:
“The Old Testament creates massive anticipation for Jesus. He shows up and fulfills what was written.”
Sure it does; but what has that got to do with Joseph Smith? He wasn’t Jesus, nor did he claim to be. Why Is he comparing Joseph Smith with Jesus? Why doesn’t he compare him with Isaiah, or Jeremiah, or Moses? Why does he not compare him with Peter or Paul, James or John? Whom is he trying to fool? Some of his viewers may be stupid enough to be fooled by that; but I doubt that all of them would be. He then continues:
“What are we waiting on now? We are waiting on some things to happen in a book called Revelation. We are not waiting for a new prophet with a new revelation. We are waiting for Christ to return. We are waiting for God to finish everything. So we have no expectation for this.”
Not according to the Bible. The Bible teaches that before Jesus comes, something else must happen first:
Acts 3:
20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
The Bible tells us that the original Christian Church that Jesus established apostatized, and lost the divine authority that it once possessed, and therefore needed to be restored. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a restoration of the original and true Church of Jesus Christ today. Then he continues:
“In fact you know what prophets we ultimately expect are many false prophets. That is what Jesus warned us about. And Jesus of course wasn’t the only last prophet ever. During the end times there is of course going to be specific prophets and stuff that come. But anyway, I thought that would be an interesting thing to do.”
A false prophet is anybody who claims to speak for God, when God has not sent him. He needs to be very careful that he doesn’t fall into that category himself. Joseph Smith, however, was a true prophet because he was truly sent from God, and there are ways that we can know that. Then skipping some introductory remarks he continues:
“Mormon theology is deeply, deeply committed to this idea that you actually know the Book of Mormon is the word of God, you actually know that Joseph Smith is the Prophet, because you get a strong sensation that he is; yeah, they used to call it a ‘burning in their bosom’. But that is a little bit dated term, so sometimes they are starting to shift the terminology of it a little bit. But yeah, that is the thing, the burning in your bosom. And then they will come to your door and knock, knock, knock, ‘Hey you know, can we just pray together,’ you know; and they quote James, you know, like you know, ‘If anyone lacks wisdom, let him ask of God,’ which of course this is not asking for wisdom, that is a total misquote of the of the passage, misapplication of it too.
“And then these strangers who come to you telling you that everything you know about God and Jesus is just a little wrong, and they have this new revelation, this new book; and you are a little freaked out by the whole experience; and then they put their hands on you and they pray; and you are just kind of freaked out, and your adrenaline is pumping, and then they are like, ‘See, that proves it, that proves it, that feeling that proves it;’ except no feeling can overturn the plain teachings of Scripture. I mean clearly, clearly it is not, it is not the right gospel, it is not the right gospel, so it must be wrong. I mean Galatians says, ‘If anyone comes to you preaching a different gospel than what you have already received here, let him be accursed.’ So no feeling is going to undo the plain teachings of Scripture; and that is a safe place for us to be.”
That of course is a complete misrepresentation of the restored gospel and Church of Jesus Christ. The Bible teaches that the Holy Ghost leads us to all truth:
John 16:
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
1 John 2:
20 But ye have an unction [anointing] from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
• • •
27 But the anointing [Holy Ghost] which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
That is how we can know all truth, but especially divine truth, and truth about the word of God. We can know that the Book of Mormon is the word of God in the same way that we can know that the Bible is the word of God—by the power of the Holy Ghost. That is the only way that anyone can know that either book is inspired and came from God. “Historical evidence” alone cannot prove that to anyone. If it did, then all Bible scholars should be believing Christians; but we know that most of them are not. We know the Book of Mormon is the word of God when we read it, and the Holy Spirit bears witness to us that it is true and of God. “Praying” alone doesn’t reveal that to anyone, and Latter-day Saints don’t tell anyone to do that. The witness comes through reading the book, and asking God in faith to reveal to us the truth of it by the power of the Holy Ghost. The “witness” comes as we prayerfully read and ponder the contents of the book. That is what LDS missionaries tell people to do. The Book of Mormon also contains a special warning for folks like Mike Winger, which he would do well to take note of:
3 Nephi 29:
5 Wo unto him that spurneth at the doings of the Lord; yea, wo unto him that shall deny the Christ and his works.
6 Yea, wo unto him that shall deny the revelations of the Lord, and that shall say the Lord no longer worketh by revelation, or by prophecy, or by gifts, or by tongues, or by healings, or by the power of the Holy Ghost.
7 Yea, and wo unto him that shall say at that day to get gain, that there can be no miracle wrought by Jesus Christ; for he that doeth this shall become like unto the son of perdition, for whom there was no mercy, according to the word of Christ.
Another scripture that proves God’s willingness to reveal truth to man (which he has scorned) is the following from James: James 1: 5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. The word “wisdom” is used in a broad sense in scripture, with a wide range of meanings, including the ability to know and discern divine truth: Proverbs 9: 10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding. Proverbs 19: 8 He that getteth wisdom loveth his own soul: he that keepeth understanding shall find good. Proverbs 16: 16 How much better is it to get wisdom than gold! and to get understanding rather to be chosen than silver! Deuteronomy 34: 9 And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom; for Moses had laid his hands upon him: and the children of Israel hearkened unto him, and did as the Lord commanded Moses. Ephesians 1: 17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: Recognizing divine truth, or the truth of the word of God, requires the “spirit of wisdom,” which can only come from God. That is how we can know whether any scripture is genuine and comes from God, including the Bible and the Book of Mormon.
After I had written the foregoing, I found another interesting video by Mike Winger (shown above), in which at 35:46 minutes into the video, after quoting Galatians 2:3 and Romans 11:6 he adds:
“You know what this is, this is the Bible defining its terms for us. Just as it defines love in 1 Corinthians 13 … here the Bible is defining the terms ‘grace’ and ‘works;’ and it says if it is grace, you can’t mix it with works, or else that is not even grace; and if it is of works, then you can’t mix it with grace, or else that is not works. You are going to be saved either by grace or by works, but you can’t mix the two. Do you see that in Romans in 11:6? If more people saw that, every cult would just cease to exist.”
After which he embarks at first on a criticism of Catholic theology, and later of LDS theology, portraying them as “mixing works with grace”. The first mistake he has made is that he thinks that Paul is the “be-all and end-all” of the Bible. When Paul has said something, there the whole Bible has “defined its terms!” Anything else that disagrees with that is a “cult!” If that be the case, then most of the rest of the Bible is a “cult!” because they teach something different. Here is one example:
James 2:
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
So in his theology the Bible “defines its terms” only in Paul, but not in James! Who says that Paul is better at “defining biblical terms” than James? I happen to think that James does a better job! Here are some more verses that he might want to look at:
Don’t these “define biblical terms”? Only Gal. 2:3; Rom. 11:6 does? And these are just a few examples from the NT. There are loads more in the OT. So in his theology the Bible “defines its terms” only in a few isolated passages of Paul, to the exclusion of 99% of the rest of the Bible! Not a very smart theology! Then at around 36:43 minutes he begins a critique of Catholic theology, portraying it as “mixing grace with works,” which after some examination I have to disagree with. I think that Catholic theology has got the balance more or less right. The Bible doesn’t “define its terms” just in Gal. 2:3; Rom. 11:6. It defines its terms in all of the 66 books of the Bible. Paul is not the “be-all and end-all” of the Bible, to the exclusion of 99% of the rest of the Bible, and even the express words of Jesus himself in the four Gospels. After that he makes a brief criticism of LDS doctrine by quoting the following verse from the Book of Mormon:
2 Nephi 25:
23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.
That passage is misunderstood. “After all we can do” means in spite of all we can do. That is the correct meaning of it. Some Latter-day Saints in the past have misunderstood it that way; but nowadays thankfully not too many of them do.
So the bottom line is that he has got his theology, as well as his knowledge of LDS doctrine and Joseph Smith badly wrong. Joseph Smith was a great prophet, and a restorer of God’s only true Church on earth. The Book of Mormon is true. It is the word of God, a book of ancient scripture like the Bible. It is also a great witness to the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith. Anybody who studies and examines it sincerely and honestly, with a genuine desire to know of its truth, has the promise that he shall know the truth of it by the power of the Holy Ghost.
